Eilers v. Boatman & Others was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a county court to issue a license to a saloon keeper. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ. The case arose when the plaintiff, Eilers, applied for a license to operate a saloon in the county of St. Louis, Missouri. The county court denied the application, and Eilers sought a writ of mandamus from the state court to compel the county court to issue the license. The state court granted the writ, and the county court appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus. The Court reasoned that the state court was not a superior court to the county court, and thus did not have the authority to issue such a writ. The Court further held that the state court was not authorized to interfere with the county court's decision. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the county court to issue a license to a saloon keeper. The Court reasoned that the state court was not a superior court to the county court, and thus did not have the authority to issue such a writ.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Eilers v. Boatman & Others, arguing that the majority had erred in its decision to deny a writ of error to the plaintiff. He argued that under California law, which was applicable in this case, an appeal should have been allowed and thus a writ of error should be granted by the Supreme Court. Justice Field further noted that while it is true there were some procedural errors made by counsel for both parties during trial proceedings, these mistakes did not affect any substantial rights or interests of either party and therefore could not be used as grounds for denying relief from judgment on appeal. In conclusion he stated his belief that justice would best be served if a writ of error were issued so as to allow review on appeal rather than leaving an erroneous judgment standing without remedy or redress available to either party involved.